Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV36701, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36701    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, October 11, 2023

Case Name:                             Garcia v. American Group Contrax, AGX LLC, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV36701

Hearing:                                 Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.

BACKGROUND

            On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff Elias Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant American Group Contrax, AGX LLC (“AGX”), DeAndre B. Wells (“Wells”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1-100 arising out of Plaintiff’s employment as a “housing specialist” with AGX. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Wells is the owner and operator of AGX, and that Plaintiff provided his labor to the Defendants as an employee, not an independent contractor, until his wrongful termination. It is further alleged that Defendants violated the Labor Code in various instances. The complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay overtime/double time; (7) waiting time penalties (California Labor Code § 203); (8) retaliation (California Labor Code § 98.6 & 1102.5); and (9) wrongful termination.

            On July 18, 2023, Defendants’ default were entered.

            Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment.

DISCUSSION

            Code of Civil Procedure § 585 permits a default judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a) requires a party seeking default judgment by court judgment to use the mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100) and to file: “(1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) Interest computations as necessary; (4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment; (7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) Exhibits as necessary; and (9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.”

            Plaintiffs request a total judgment of $68,328.34, consisting of damages in the amount of $58,538.00, interest in the amount of $5,500.97, costs in the amount of $1,583.23, and attorney fees in the amount of $2,706.14. (Form CIV-100, ¶¶ 2, 7; see also [Proposed] Judgment, ¶ 6; Litwin Declaration, ¶¶ 8-11; and Garcia Declaration, ¶¶ 4, 6-14.) Plaintiff used mandatory form CIV-100 (which includes a declaration of nonmilitary status (¶ 8)) and complied with some of the other requirements of CRC, rule 3.1800(a). Plaintiff submitted a [Proposed] Judgment on Form JUD-100, and a Request for Dismissal of Does 1-100.

In support of his damages, Plaintiff relies on his own declaration. In this regard, Plaintiff attests that he was hired by AGX on August 1, 2022 and worked there until he was terminated on September 13, 2022. (Garcia Declaration, ¶ 2.) Additionally, he witnessed Wells to be the owner and operator of AGX. (Id. at ¶ 3.) When Plaintiff was hired, his agreed upon hourly rate was $28.00, and it was agreed that he would be paid on a bi-weekly basis. (Id. at ¶ 4.) During his brief period of employment, Plaintiff states that he worked no less than 40 hours per week and that he was never paid for his labor. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Because he worked 240 hours at an hourly wage of $28.00, Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to $6,720 in unpaid wages. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Also, Plaintiff seeks minimum wage liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code § 1194, and because less than 25 people worked for AGX, the applicable minimum wage was $14.00. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Thus, Plaintiff also seeks damages in the amount of $3,360 pursuant to Labor Code § 1194. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, Plaintiff attests that he never received a wage statement as required under Labor Code § 226, and as a result, he is entitled to $250 in penalties. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Moreover, because Plaintiff was terminated on September 13, 2023 and his unpaid wages remain outstanding, he asserts that is entitled to $4,928 in waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201 and 203. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Additionally, Plaintiff attests that he regularly complained to Wells about the fact he was not being paid, and in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, Wells terminated Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f). In connection with his wrongful termination claim, Plaintiff attests that he is entitled to remedies pursuant to Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5 as well as emotional distress damages; therefore, he claims that $10,000 is reasonable compensation for having suffered from “generalized insult, hurt feelings and lingering resentment” due to Defendants’ conduct. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.) Following his termination, Plaintiff was unemployed until October 24, 2022 until he secured employment where he is being paid $940 per week. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Having been unemployed for six weeks and now working at a lower rate than before, Plaintiff asserts that he has accumulated $13,920 in lost wages. (Ibid.)

Based on this evidence, there are several reasons why Plaintiff’s request for default judgment cannot be entered as requested. First, while Plaintiff claims to have never been paid for his labor, Plaintiff has also failed to provide any evidence other than his own declaration to corroborate the assertion that his hourly wage was $28. Second, assuming Plaintiff’s hourly wage was $28, this is in excess of the applicable minimum wage of $14, and as a result, Plaintiff’s reliance on Labor Code § 1194 is misplaced. The purpose of this statute is provide backpay to employees who had agreed to work for a wage lower than legal minimum wage. If the Court awarded Plaintiff these requested liquidated damages in addition to his unpaid wages, it would result in a double recovery. Thus, the damages sought pursuant to Labor Code § 1194 are improper.

Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f), Plaintiff’s declaration fails to show that the Defendants prevented him from disclosing Defendants’ failure to timely pay wages to “government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation.” (Labor Code § 1102.5(a).) Instead, Plaintiff’s declaration merely states that he made several complaints to Defendants about this issue until he was ultimately termination. (Garcia Declaration, ¶ 10.) As a result, the civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5(f) are inapplicable based on this evidence. It is noted that civil penalties under Labor Code § 98.6(b)(3) could be applicable, but Plaintiff’s default judgment application does not seek such penalties.

Fourth, Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages in the amount of $10,000 are excessive based on the evidence presented. Plaintiff merely states that he as experienced “generalized insult, hurt feelings and lingering resentment” due to being yelled at and fired. (Garcia Declaration, ¶¶ 10, 12.)

Fifth, in terms of Plaintiff’s claim of lost wages, Plaintiff has not submitted any paystubs from his current employer to corroborate that he is currently making $940 per week. Lastly, because certain damages have been improperly sought, this would necessarily affect the interest and attorney fees calculations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CONCLUSION

        Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff to give notice.